D.8. Relevant rulings where the independence of the Indian Judiciary has been challenged
No one is perfect in this world. So, how can a judiciary be perfectly independent? In India too, judicial independence has been challenged in various court rulings. However, before that, to justify this, in India the Constitution has mentioned provisions for the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and the High Court, but the final approval while selecting the judges is in consultation with the President of India. A few of these court rulings are:
|
The Rafale deal case |
In this case, the Indian Government announced a deal with the French Government to purchase 36 Rafale fighter jets from the French company Dassault Aviation in 2015. The deal also included a 50% offset clause which meant that the French company had to invest 50% of the contract value in India by purchasing Indian goods and services. Next year, the company and Reliance Group announced a joint venture. Dassault specified that it wants to invest $115 million to fulfill its offset obligation partially. Hence, the matter went to the Supreme Court where the litigants alleged irregularities in the deal. The Court turned down the corruption charges on the grounds that it had less scope for judicial review in defense matters. This decision of the Court proved to be controversial as the government stated that the judgment had some factual errors. The judgment consisted of the CAG(Comptroller and Auditor General) report and the Parliamentary Accounts Committee report which were submitted to the Court by the government and were termed as misinformation. The Court decided to review the petitions on merit, hence closing the controversy. |
|
The Bhima Koregaon case |
In 2018, the celebrations for the bicentenary anniversary of the Bhima Koregaon battle were interrupted due to violence leading to the death of a person and several injuries. The police investigated and arrested several activists claiming that inflammatory speeches were made by them eventually leading to the violence. Hence a PIL was filed seeking an investigation by the SIT(Special investigation team) over the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act charges against the arrested activists. The litigants alleged that the Mumbai Police were biased in their decision. The case went to the Supreme Court who dismissed the case with a 2:1 majority. While the two judges who were Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice Khanwilkar were satisfied with the investigation done by the Mumbai Police, Whereas, Justice D.Y Chandrachud was not. Justice Chandrachud dissented, alleging that the arrests were made targeting political dissent. |
|
Aadhar Act as a money bill case |
In this case, the issue was whether the Aadhar Act in 2016, was passed as a money bill. The court held that it was a money bill again with a majority. Justice A.K Sikri accepted the act as a money bill and referred to Section 7 of the Act which states that the Aadhar based authentication can be used for benefits or services charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, hence it can be used as a money bill. Whereas, Article 110 of the Constitution stated that the money bill can be used only on services related to spending and receiving of money by the Union Government. Hence, the judgment was criticized and Justice Chandrachud who had dissented to the judgment termed it as a fraud on the Indian Constitution. |
|
The CBI-Alok Verma case |
In this case, the judgment was delayed. The government had divested the CBI director Alok Verma of all his powers. This needed sanctions from a high-powered committee under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The Supreme Court examined the details of the corruption charges against the CBI director. Later, the Court directed the reinstatement of Verma as the CBI director on the basis of the sanctions of the selected committee. However, the reinstatement was ordered when Mr. Verma had just three weeks left for his tenure. Hence, this raised criticism once again. |